============================== CFJ 3184 ==============================
To initiate a criminal case, Rule 1504 requires specifying exactly
one person as the Accused.
========================================================================
Caller: Murphy
Barred: FKA441344
Judge: omd
Judgement: TRUE
========================================================================
History:
Called by Murphy: 26 Feb 2012 16:31:22 GMT
Assigned to omd: 10 Mar 2012 18:20:15 GMT
Judged TRUE by omd: 11 Mar 2012 08:34:14 GMT
========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
Rule 1504 requires specifying "a " in order to initiate, and
the rest of it generally appears to assume that this means "exactly one
". The alternate interpretation "at least one "
may be possible to use, but would at least have interesting consequences
likely to lead to further adjudication and/or legislation (e.g. if you
accuse X and Y of Z, and X did it but Y didn't, then GUILTY unfairly
dings Y while NOT GUILTY may unfairly give X a double-jeopardy defense).
Inquiry cases specifying multiple statements have been allowed, but
only because that rule is written differently. Currently, Rule 591
merely requires the announcement to "include" a statement, with a
judgement of MALFORMED if the initiator failed to specify a single
statement (e.g. CFJ 2924). The first multiple-statement CFJ that I
remember is CFJ 1266, which was dismissed due to a different but
similar rule.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The first multiple-statement CFJ that I
> remember is CFJ 1266, which was dismissed due to a different but
> similar rule.
Obligatory digging: CFJ 6 most likely counts
(http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/stare_detail/06.txt).
========================================================================
Judge omd's Arguments:
This is about a criminal case in which I am the defendant, so I would
recuse myself, but I think this is pretty clear cut: indeed, the rest
of the rule uses "the Accused", "the specified rule", "the specified
act", and it is common practice to use "a" to mean "one" - "specifying
an integer from 1 to 14", "the enacting instrument may specify a title
for the new rule". TRUE on 3184-86. (But it may be the case that
"did X and Y" can be considered a single, composite "action".)
========================================================================